ANALOG DEVICES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action against Analog Devices, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Oct. 13, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed on behalf of participants in the company's Investment Partnership Plan from Oct. 5, 2000 to the present.

The complaint named as defendants the company, certain officers and directors, and the company's Investment Partnership Plan Administration Committee.

The complaint alleges purported violations of federal law in connection with the company's option granting practices during the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, including breaches of fiduciary duties owed to participants and beneficiaries of the company's Investment Partnership Plan under ERISA.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On Jan. 8, 2007, the Plaintiff filed memoranda in opposition.

On Jan. 22, 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed further memoranda in support of the motions to dismiss.

The company provided no material development in the matter in its May 22, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

The suit is "Bendaoud v. Hodgson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11873-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.

AMERICAN EXPRESS: $100M Securities Suit Deal Granted Final OK-------------------------------------------------------------Judge Deborah A. Batts of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order granting final approval to a $100 million settlement in the matter, "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04 Civ. 1773 (DAB)."

The settlement resolves claims that AEFA violated federal securities laws and breached fiduciary duties by perpetrating a scheme to defraud its investing clients.

In October 2005, a comprehensive settlement was reached regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against the company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004.

The settlement, under which the company denies any liability, includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class members.

The settlement covers all persons and entities who, at any time from and including March 10, 1999 through and including April 1, 2006:

-- paid a fee for financial advisory services as described in the American Express or Ameriprise Financial Advisory Services Brochure and the Financial Advisory Service Agreement;

-- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors (now Ameriprise) any mutual fund in the American Express or Ameriprise Preferred Provider Program, Select Group Program, or other similar program;

-- purchased through American Express Financial Advisors any mutual fund sold under the American Express, AXP, or RiverSource brand;

-- paid a fee for financial advice, financial planning, or other financial advisory services rendered in connection with the American Express or Ameriprise Strategic Portfolio Service program, Wealth Management Service program, or Separately Managed Account program.

Following a final approval hearing held on July 13, 2007, the Court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate. According to a press release by Girard Gibbs LLP, law firm for plaintiffs, the settlement covers clients of AEFA who purchased financial advisory services or financial advice (such as a financial plan) and/or mutual funds in the American Express family of mutual funds between March 10, 1999 and February 9, 2004.

Under the settlement terms, the Company will pay $100 million to individuals who purchased financial advice, financial plans or other financial advisory services from AEFA. In addition to the settlement fund, AEFA is also responsible for the costs of settlement and claims administration, estimated between $15 million and $18 million.

Of the 2.8 million potential claimants who received notice of the settlement, more than one million claims have been filed. This figure represents significant participation in the settlement. The Court acknowledged that by voting with their feet, the vast number of claimants demonstrated the fairness of the settlement.

According to lead attorney for the class, Daniel Girard, "We are very pleased to have obtained over $115 million in value for the class members. The relative percentage of claimants is one of the highest we have ever seen and with that level of participation, we are confident that the best interests of the class have been served through the resolution of this litigation."

The suit is "In Re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Deborah A. Batts.

AQUILA INC: Parties Seek to Conclude Suit Over Acquisition----------------------------------------------------------Aquila Inc. and Pirate Capital, LLC are in negotiations that may result in the dismissal of a purported a class action filed by Pirate Capital in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware in and for New Castle County against the Board of Directors of Aquila.

Pirate Capital serves as the investment advisor to four event-driven hedge funds, named plaintiffs in the suit:

Pirate Capital alleges breaches of fiduciary duties related to the process and structure of the proposed transaction with Great Plains Energy, Inc. as well as conflicts of interest (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2007).

Aquila began in 1940 as Missouri Public Service. However, Aquila got caught up in the Enron bankruptcy that triggered increased credit requirements for the company and led to the collapse of Aquila's energy-trading business, contributing to $2.9 billion in losses in the following four years.

Three Aquila employees pled guilty in August 2006 to federal charges that they submitted false natural gas trade reports to industry publications between 1999-2005.

Defendant Richard C. Green, a director of Aquila since 1982, caused Aquila to sell $3.6 billion in assets since 2002 to raise cash to pay debt.

In connection with its restructuring efforts, Aquila undertook a strategic review in the beginning of 2006, with the assistance of Blackstone Group and Lehman Bros., advisors to the Aquila Board of Directors and Evercore Partners Inc., advisor to Aquila's outside directors.

Following this strategic review, the Board determined that a “targeted” auction process be undertaken, and instructed that their financial advisors contact nine parties consisting of seven strategic buyers and two financial buyers.

Ultimately, in August 2006, Aquila received five preliminary bids, ranging from $4.15 to $5 per share. Following due diligence, only Great Plains submitted a final bid.

Great Plains requested that Aquila enter into an exclusivity agreement in order to finalize the terms of any possible deal. Thus, from November 2006 until Feb. 7, 2007, Aquila and GreatPlains had such an exclusivity arrangement.

On Feb. 7, 2007, Aquila announced it had entered into a definitive agreement with Great Plains pursuant to which Great Plains will acquire all the outstanding shares of the company for $1.80 in cash plus 0.0856 Great Plains share for each share of Aquila common stock.

Prior to Great Plains' acquisition of Aquila, Black Hills Corp. will acquire certain utilities from Aquila in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa for $940 million. The transaction is conditioned upon the Black Hills acquisition.

The transaction is valued at approximately $1.7 billion, or $4.54 per share, based on Great Plains's closing stock price on Feb. 6, 2007. Great Plains is also assuming approximately $1 billion of Aquila's debt.

The price in the transaction does not represent a premium for Aquila stockholders and is a discount to Aquila's Feb. 6, 2007 closing price of $4.67 per share.

After the transaction was announced, Aquila management announced that it anticipated substantial EBITDA growth through 2012, indicating that the transaction price undervalues Aquila.

According to Pirate's presentation relating to the transaction, Great Plains "negotiated a sweetheart deal for control ofAquila."

Pirate has asserted its adamant opposition to the deal with Great Plains since the deal was announced on Feb. 7, 2007, and instead recommends that Aquila accept only the transaction with Black Hills Corp. and continue to operate as a stand-alone company.

According to Pirate's presentation, Aquila "will be an investment grade, Missouri electric utility play with EBITDA growth rates in excess of 20.0% per year compared to the current junk-rated disparate mix of assets providing barely 10.0% annualized growth."

Pirate values the company at $5.00-5.50 per share.

The Class Action

The class action raises these questions:

-- whether the defendants have fulfilled, and are capable of fulfilling, their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and the other members of the class, including their duties of entire fairness, fair dealing, loyalty, due care, and candor;

-- whether the defendants have disclosed all material facts in connection with the challenged transaction; and

-- whether plaintiffs and the other members of the class would be irreparably damaged if the defendants are not enjoined from the conduct described herein.

Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

-- declaring this to be a proper class action and naming plaintiffs as class representatives;

-- granting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the consummation of the transaction as described in the complaint;

-- in the event the transaction is consummated, rescinding the transaction and awarding rescissory damages;

ARIZONA: Tim Hogan Files Contempt Motion in English Program Suit---------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Tim Hogan has filed a motion asking a federal judge to fine the Arizona Legislature and declare it in contempt of a court order to spend more on English language programs, Chris Kahn of the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Hogan proposes a daily fine on the Legislature’s failure to adequately fund programs that teach English to Arizona students who speak it as a second language. The fine would be $500,000 a day for the first month that it fails to act, $1 million a day for the next month, $1.5 million a day for the next month, and so on. This should begin after a 15-day grace period.

He also asked the court to expedite a hearing to consider his request.

Case Background

The state was ordered to improve its offering to students learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000 that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students were inadequately funded.

The order was part of a ruling in a class action, which was originally filed in 1992 and led by Mr. Hogan on behalf of Nogales Unified students and parents.

The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that guarantees equal opportunities in education. The state was fined $500,000 in January 2006 for missing a deadline to draft ways to improve the program.

The fine was increased to $1 million, resulting to a $21 million in total fines. The fines were stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill seeking to revamp the English learning programs was passed into law in March 2006.

In April 2006, U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins ruled that the law still doesn't adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out the costs of providing those programs, and doesn't explain the basis for funding that it does provide.

The 9th Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San Francisco on July 25, 2006. In August, it vacated orders by Judge Collins, blocked the distribution of the fines to public schools, and allowed the state to return the money to the general fund.

The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the state has made improvements to its programs in light of changes in education funding and related circumstances since the original 2000 ruling.

The August ruling of the appellate court did not rule directly on the latest law regarding the program.

Judge Collins finished on Jan. 25 a hearing to determine whether the state has already improved the program (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2007).

On March 22, he issued a ruling stating that the system is still deficient. He ordered lawmakers to resolve the issue by the end of their current session.

Meanwhile, the Legislature adjourned this year without any discussion of revamping English language learning to comply with Judge Collins' judgment. Instead, Republican lawmakers and the state schools chief asked the 9th Circuit to put Collins' ruling on hold.

The appeals court rejected that request on June 25 saying Judge Collins hasn't yet found the Legislature in contempt for ignoring his earlier ruling to boost the programs.

The class action is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins.

ARKANSAS: Lawsuit Filed Over District’s Millage Rate Increase-------------------------------------------------------------Dollarway Patrons for Better Schools and several individuals filed a purported class action in the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Arkansas challenging the results of the March 13 referendum to increase the district’s millage rate, The Pine Bluff Commercial reports.

Dollarway Superintendent Thomas Gathen had admitted that incorrect figures were advertised when pushing for the tax hike that increased the district’s property tax rate to 42.3 mills.

The plaintiffs argue that the court should nullify the tax increase completely. According to them, collecting proceeds based on the results of the March election would result in an “illegal exaction” because of the “... deliberate, knowing, erroneous, capricious, grossly negligent and prejudicial ‘official actions’ taken by members of the Board of Education of the Dollarway School District, and the administrators of the Dollarway School District (especially Superintendent Thomas Gathen...”

They asked for a judgment requiring the district to reimburse them for litigation costs and “...any and all addition relief that the Circuit Court may find that the plaintiff-class is entitled to receive.”

Named as defendants in the suit were all members of the Dollarway School Board, the district, Jefferson County Judge Mike Holcomb, members of the Jefferson County Quorum Court, Tax Assessor Larry Fratesi and Tax Collector Stephanie Stanton.

BASF CORP: Distribution Plan in $62.5M POAST Suit Deal Approved---------------------------------------------------------------The Plan of Distribution in the $62.5 million nationwide settlement of a suit filed by farmers who purchased BASF Corp.'s herbicide POAST(R) was approved at a June 5, 2007 Final Approval Hearing, according to the settlement Web site http://www.poastclassaction.com/.

Counsel for the Class will now ask the Court to appoint a Special Master (a retired Judge), to review, approve or deny claims. This process will occur this summer, probably in August, and claimants will be notified by mail of the status of their claim when the Special Master issues his report and recommendations to the District Court. Claimants with claims denied in whole or part will have the opportunity to contest the Special Master's report and recommendations.

A distribution to claimants will not occur until after the hearing addressing the Special Master's report and recommendations, and receipt of the requested private letter ruling from the IRS.

Case Background

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 in Norman County District Court, Ada, Minnesota by 11 farmers who accused New Jersey-based BASF Corp. of fraudulently marketing the same herbicide as different products -- POAST and POAST Plus -- at different prices.

The lawsuit claimed that this marketing was intended to obtain inflated prices for the same herbicide from minor crop farmers. Minor crop farmers are growers of sugarbeets, sunflowers, potatoes, field beans, fruits and vegetables, and flowers.

After a trial and numerous appeals, the farmers prevailed.

On Nov. 17, 2006, BASF paid $62.5 million into the Farmers' Common Fund, an interest-bearing bank account approved by the court, to hold farmers' money until distribution.

The jury found that the herbicides were essentially the same, but that BASF charged more for Poast (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 15, 2006).

Farmers who bought Poast herbicide from 1992 to 1996 are eligible to share in the judgment. Plaintiffs' attorney Douglas Nill estimated that several thousand farmers are eligible. The distribution will be pro rata.

Deadline to file objections was May 9, 2007. Deadline to file claims was May 16, 2007.

BMW NORTH: Faces Calif. Suit Over Faulty Automatic Transmissions----------------------------------------------------------------BMW North America is facing a class-action complaint filed July 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accusing it of selling and leasing cars with faulty automatic transmissions that won’t go into reverse, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

He claims BMW knew of the defect but shipped the cars anyway, and failed to notify customers despite receiving “hundreds of complaints” about it.

Plaintiff brings this action both individually and as a class action on behalf of all those who purchased or leased a new or used BMW vehicle equipped with a ZF Transmission in the State of California, at any time, and whose clutch drum did not engage, thereby resulting in an ability to operate vehicles in reverse gear.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on whether:

(a) whether the vehicles are defectively designed;

(b) whether BMW knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that vehicles were defectively designed at the times that BMW sold the vehicles to class members;

(c) whether BMW knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the vehicles were defectively designed at the times that BMW made affirmative representations in its marketing brochures concerning the ZF transmissions in the vehicles;

(d) whether BMW's conduct in connection with the sale of the vehicles violated Section 1770 of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act;

(e) whether BMW was unjustly enriched by the retention of non-gratuitous benefits conferred by plaintiff and members of the class; and

(f) whether as a result of BMW's misconduct, plaintiff and class members are entitled to damages, restitution, equitable relief, injunctive relief, or other relief, and the amount and nature of such relief.

Plaintiff prays that the court enter judgment and orders in his favor and against BMW as follows:

-- an order certifying the class and directing that this case proceed as a class action;

-- judgment in favor of plaintiff and the members of the class in an amount of actual damages to be determined at trial;

-- an order enjoining BMW further wrongful conduct in the State of California;

-- an order granting reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as pre- and post judgment interest; and

-- such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate.

The suit is "Kevin Daugherty et al. v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. CV 07 4719JFU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

CASTLEBERRY’S FOOD: Expands Contaminated Chili Products Recall--------------------------------------------------------------Castleberry’s Food Co. is taking extra steps to ensure public safety by voluntarily expanding its recall originally announced on July 18 due to the risk of botulinum toxin, a bacterium which can cause botulism.

Botulism can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

The recall originally announced on July 18 affected only 10 products with ‘best by’ dates from APR30 2009 through MAY22 2009. The extended recall now includes the following canned products in the following sizes with all ‘best by’ and code dates:

Consumers are advised not use these products even if they do not look or smell spoiled. Consumers with these products should dispose of them by double bagging in plastic bags that are tightly closed before being placed in a trash receptacle for non-recyclable trash outside of the home, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

“There is nothing more important to us than the health of those who use our products every day,” said Steve Mavity, SVP Technical Services/Quality Assurance for Castleberry’s. “We are taking every step necessary, and are working hand in hand with health officials around the clock to ensure the safety of consumers.”

Mr. Mavity said, “We believe we have isolated the issue to a situation of under-processing on one line of our production facility. As an extra precaution to the recall we announced on Wednesday, we have shut down this line altogether and are recalling all products produced on it.”

Castleberry’s is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate possible contamination of these products.

Castleberry’s was notified by the FDA of two confirmed botulism cases and two potential botulism cases involving individuals who ate Hot Dog Chili Sauce products. No new cases have been reported since the recall was announced on July 18.

There have been no reported illnesses linked to Natural Balance canned pet food, but Castleberry’s recommends that all these products should be discarded. While botulism can affect some pets, dogs and cats are inherently resistant. The disease has only been seen occasionally in dogs and has not been reported in cats. Ferrets are highly susceptible to botulinum toxin. The incubation period can be two hours to two weeks; in most cases, the symptoms appear after 12 to 24 hours.

Botulism is characterized by progressive motor paralysis. Typical clinical signs may include muscle paralysis, difficulty breathing, chewing and swallowing, visual disturbances and generalized weakness may also occur. Death usually results from paralysis of the respiratory or cardiac muscles. Pet owners who have used these products and whose pets have these symptoms should contact their veterinarian immediately.

A toll-free hotline is also available for consumer questions at 1-800-203-4412 or 1-888-203-8446.

CENTEX CORP: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Profit Sharing Plan----------------------------------------------------------------Centex Corp. settled a purported class action that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the administrative committee of the company's profit sharing plan, the company and certain of the company's current and former directors and executive officers.

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the suit alleges:

-- breach of fiduciary duty,

-- violation of disclosure obligations to plan participants,

-- failure to monitor the performance of plan fiduciaries,

-- breach of duty of loyalty, and

-- violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in connection with investments by the profit sharing plan in shares of the company's common stock.

This action was brought by certain former employees of the company and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees and equitable and injunctive relief.

In May 2007, the case was settled and dismissed, without any material amount being paid by the company, according to the company’s May 22, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007.

The suit is "Nemec et al. v. Hannigan et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01451," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Sam A. Lindsay.

The suit is “Allen v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., Case No. 8:07-cv-01234-EAK-TBM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich with referral to Thomas B. McCoun.

In 2003, 17 black former customers and employees of Dillard’s sued the retailer in U.S. District Court, alleging that Dillard’s had engaged in systematic racial discrimination against black customers.

They claimed service staff and security guards followed and watched them closely while they were in the store, yet ignored them when they sought assistance in making purchases.

According to Mr. Arand, several of Dillard’s former employees acknowledged an “unwritten” policy of discrimination against black customers going back over a decade, which included heightened surveillance and a double standard for refunds on returned items.

The U.S. District Court in Kansas City dismissed the suit in 2005, saying that the plaintiffs’ allegations did not constitute racial discrimination under Federal Civil Rights legislation.

In its recent decision, the 8th Circuit overturned the 2005 ruling, and ordered the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to hear the case.

In January 2001, the company, on its own initiative, notified each owner of 1999 and early-2000 model year Harley-Davidson motorcycles equipped with Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines that the company was extending the warranty for a rear cam bearing to 5 years or 50,000 miles.

Subsequently, on June 28, 2001, a putative nationwide class action was filed against the company in state court in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, which was amended by a complaint filed Sept. 28, 2001. The complaint alleged that this cam bearing is defective and asserted various legal theories.

The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for affected owners, an order compelling the company to repair the engines and other relief. On Feb. 27, 2002, the company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted by the court and the amended complaint was dismissed in its entirety. An appeal was filed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

On April 12, 2002, the same attorneys filed a second putative nationwide class action against the company in state court in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin relating to this cam bearing issue and asserting different legal theories than in the first action. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, an order compelling the company to repair the engines and other relief.

On Sept. 23, 2002, the company's motion to dismiss was granted by the court, the complaint was dismissed in its entirety, and no appeal was taken.

On Jan. 14, 2003, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's Feb. 27, 2002 dismissal of the complaint in the first action, and the company petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review.

On March 26, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the remaining claims in the action. On April 12, 2004, the same attorneys filed a third action in the state court in Milwaukee County, on behalf of the same plaintiffs from the action dismissed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This third action was dismissed by the court on July 26, 2004.

In addition, the plaintiffs in the original case moved to reopen that matter and amend the complaint to add new causes of action. On Sept. 9, 2004, Milwaukee County Circuit Court refused to allow the reopening or amendment. Plaintiffs again appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and on Dec. 13, 2005, the Court of Appeals again reversed the trial court.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the company filed a petition for review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard on Sept. 7, 2006. In July 2007, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals decision that allowed amendments to the suit to include warranty and contract claims. It said the circuit court has no authority to reopen the case without an order.

HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Denied--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion by Herley Industries Inc. and Herley's former Chairman, Lee N. Blatt to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit filed against them.

In 2006, Herley was faced with several securities class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Herley Industries, Inc. between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2006).

The complaint alleges that Herley and its top officers defrauded persons investing in Herley securities, violating the federal securities laws.

On June 6, 2006, Herley revealed that the company and its Chairman, Lee N. Blatt, had been indicted on multiple charges, in connection with excessive profits improperly "earned" by Herley on contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.

On June 13, 2006, the company announced that its operations in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Woburn, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, and a subsidiary in Farmingdale, New York had been suspended from receiving new contract awards from the U.S. Government. Government contracts had historically accounted for approximately 25% of Herley's business.

The Court also denied motions by certain officers to dismiss claims under one section of the securities laws, while dismissing claims under another.

The suit is “In re Herley Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-02596-JS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Juan R. Sanchez.

HONEYWELL RETIREMENT: Still Faces Ariz. Pensioners' Lawsuit-----------------------------------------------------------Honeywell International Inc. continues to face a certified class action filed by members of its retirement earnings plan.

Plaintiffs in the suit seek unspecified damages relating to allegations that, among other things, Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension benefits of employees of Garrett Corp., a predecessor entity, when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate certain benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan.

In the third quarter of 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on these claims and in favor of the Honeywell on virtually all other claims.

The company said it strongly disagrees with, and intends to appeal, the court's adverse ruling. In September 2006, the court certified a class.

No material development was reported in the matter in Honeywell International, Inc.’s July 19, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement EarningsPlan, Case No. 2:04-cv-00424-ROS," filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Arizona under Judge Roslyn O. Silver.

LOG DEN: Wis. Restaurant Patrons Sue for Food-Related Ailments--------------------------------------------------------------Nine people have filed a class action in Door County, Wisconsin Circuit Court seeking compensation for ailments caused by eating and drinking at the Log Den Restaurant in Egg Harbor, reports say.

At least 225 people became ill after consuming food or drink prepared and sold at the Log Den during the period beginning May 1, the lawsuit stated.

Serving food and beverages that caused ailments were a breach of "the implied warranty" of the business that those items were "reasonably fit for human consumption," the lawsuit stated.

"Restaurants are not supposed to serve food and drink that cause people injury," said Brett Reetz, one of three lawyers who brought the suit.

Water tests confirmed the presence of norovirus in a well just outside the restaurant, according to WBAY Green Bay. It causes vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue.

The suit seeks to recover damages from the Log Den, the trust company that owns the land where the restaurant operates at 6543 Division Road, Egg Harbor, and the unnamed insurance companies that provide coverage to the business. It seeks lost wages, medical expenses, along with lawyer and court fees.

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Foster Farms Sues Over Bid-Rigging Scheme------------------------------------------------------------Marsh & McLennan Cos. is facing a class-action antitrust claim filed July 20 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged bid-rigging scheme in insurance services from 1998 to 2005.

Named plaintiff Foster Poultry Farms brings this action for treble damages and attorney’s fees under the Sherman Act and for forfeiture of compensation, restitution, damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under state law.

The complaint alleges that during the period from 1998 to 2005, Marsh received substantial compensation for serving as Foster Farms’ insurance broker. From 1998 to 2005 Foster Farms paid substantial amounts in insurance premiums for insurance policies to the AIG Defendants as well as other insurers. Marsh promised Foster Farms during this period that it would act in the best interests of Foster Farms to obtain cost-effective insurance, but failed to do so.

Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the Defendants’ alleged massive scheme to manipulate the market for commercial insurance. The Defendants participated in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the sale of insurance by coordinating and rigging bids for insurance policies, allocating insurance markets and customers, including Foster Farms, and raising, maintaining, or stabilizing premium prices above competitive levels.

Defendants allegedly breached the duties owed to Foster Farms by failing to fully and accurately disclose, among other things:

(a) the existence, source and amount of their Contingent Commissions;

(b) the material impact of the Contingent Commissions on their overall profitability;

(c) that the Contingent Commissions created economic incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their fiduciary duties to Foster Farms;

(d) that the Contingent Commissions created economic incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their duty of care to Foster Farms;

(e) that the Contingent Commissions created economic incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their duty of loyalty to Foster Farms;

(f) that the Contingent Commissions created economic incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their duty to provide impartial advice to Foster Farms;

(g) that the Contingent Commissions created economic incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their duty to exercise their best judgment on behalf of Foster Farms;

(h) that the Contingent Commissions created economic incentives for the Defendants to act contrary to their duty of candor and full disclosure to Foster Farms; and

(i) that the Contingent Commissions created economic disincentives for the Defendants to carry out their contractual obligations to Foster Farms.

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter judgment on its behalf on all claims and to grant the following relief:

-- Treble damages and attorneys’ fees as remedies for the Defendants’ violations of the Sherman Act and injunctive relief permanently enjoining the Defendants from violating section 1 of the Sherman Act through the conduct set forth herein;

-- Forfeiture of compensation retained by Marsh; restitution of payments received from Foster Farms; damages caused by the Defendants’ conduct; punitive damages owing to the malicious, willful, and wanton nature of the Defendants’ conduct;

-- Prejudgment interest; treble damages; injunctive relief; and attorneys’ fees as remedies for the Defendants’ violations of state law; and

-- Such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

The suit is “Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03315-KSH-PS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Katharine S. Hayden, with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.

The suit is “Cowdry v. M/I Homes of Tampa, LLC et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01236-EAK-TGW,’ filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich with referral to Thomas G. Wilson.

NASH FINCH: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Complaint---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has denied a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated complaint in the securities fraud class action against Nash Finch Co.

On Dec. 19, 2005, and Jan. 4, 2006, two purported class actions were filed against the company and certain of the company's executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period:

* from Feb. 24, 2005, the date the company announced an agreement to acquire two distribution divisions from Roundy's

* through Oct. 20, 2005, the date the company announced a downward revision to its earnings outlook for fiscal 2005.

One of the complaints was voluntarily dismissed on March 3, 2006 and a consolidated complaint was filed on June 30, 2006. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false statements regarding, among other things, the integration of the distribution divisions acquired from Roundy's, the performance of the company's core businesses, its internal controls, and its financial projections, so as to artificially inflate the price of the company's common stock.

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the Court denied on May 1, 2007, according to the company’s July 19, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 16, 2007.

The suit is "In Re: Nash Finch Co. Securities Litigation, CaseNo. 0:02-cv-04736-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.

NATIONAL FORWARDING: Accused of Defrauding Freight Haulers----------------------------------------------------------National Forwarding Co., the Pentagon’s authorized agent for national and international moving services, is facing a class-action complaint filed July 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging it cheated freight haulers, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

It further claims that rather than paying the extra money, per mile per weight, National keeps it, breaching contract and illegally enriching itself.

Plaintiff brings this nationwide class action on behalf of all persons in the U.S. who contracted with National Forwarding in connection with moving services rendered for employees of the U.S. Department of Defense and who were not properly compensated pursuant to the applicable Hauling Contract by National Forwarding for unpaid "Additional Transportation Charges" during the period from 1997 until the present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

(a) whether defendant breached its contracts with plaintiff and the class;

(c) whether the Hauling Contract's terms are uniform among plaintiff and all class members; and

(d) whether class members have sustained damages and, if so, what is the proper measure of damages.

Plaintiff asks that the court enter an order:

-- certifying this matter as a class action, appointing plaintiff as class representative and designating plaintiff's counsel as class counsel;

-- finding that defendant has breached its contracts with plaintiff and the class and awarding plaintiff and the class damages in connection therewith;

-- awarding plaintiff's and the class counsel's fees and costs in connection with maintaining this action;

-- awarding plaintiff and the class pre-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law;

-- awarding plaintiff and the class any penalties as allowed by law; and

-- providing any other relief the court deems just and equitable.

The suit is “Spaulding Moving and Storage, Inc. v. National Forwarding Co., Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-04095,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge William T. Hart.

OREGON: Court Approves $14M Settlement with Laid-off Custodians ---------------------------------------------------------------U.S. Magistrate Judge John Jelderks approved a $14.5 million settlement of a class action filed against the Portland Public Schools board by custodians laid off in 2002, the Portland Business Journal reports.

The suit was filed after the district hired Portland Habilitation Center workers to replace its union custodians to save money. In 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the district violated state labor law in doing so.

In 2006, the Portland Public Schools board, which is involved in a mediation to resolve the class action, agreed to settle the suit for $14.5 million (Class Action Reporter, April 26, 2007).

The settlement, which would benefit 280 custodians, was reached in a mediation led by Edward Leavy, a senior judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the agreement, each custodian will receive approximately $37,000 (before taxes) in back pay and other damages.

Some $500,000 of the settlement will be paid as federal employment taxes and $200,000 will be paid to outside attorneys.

The settlement resolves all damage claims by the custodians in Oregon federal and state courts. Each custodian will receive a cash payment of more than $37,000 after payment of all court costs and attorney fees.

In addition, custodians who had "extraordinary" health care costs that would have been paid for by the school district's insurance carriers, but did not because of the termination, will receive reimbursement for those costs. There are also provisions for payment of lost PERS contributions.

"We are very pleased that the settlement received such wide acceptance," noted the plaintiffs' attorney, Mark Griffin of Griffin & McCandlish of Portland.

PEGASUS WIRELESS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.-------------------------------------------------------------Pegasus Wireless Corp. faces a purported securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company’s May 21, 2007 Form 10QSB Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

Michael Mitchell, who claims to be a shareholder of Pegasus filed the class-action complaint claiming that Pegasus, as well as several individual members of the Pegasus Board of Directors have violated Federal Securities Laws by publishing a series of false and misleading statements.

The suit is “Mitchell v. Pegasus Wireless Corp. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-06969-MHP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.

PEMCO AVIATION: Ala. Court Approves Settlement of Labor Case------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has approved a settlement in a purported class action against Pemco Aviation Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Pemco Aeroplex.

In December 1999, the company and Pemco Aeroplex were served with the suit, alleging unlawful employment practices of race discrimination and racial harassment by the company's managers, supervisors and other employees.

The suit is seeking declaratory, injunctive relief and other compensatory and punitive damages. It sought damages in the amount of $75.0 million.

On July 27, 2000, the U.S. District Court determined that the group would not be certified as a class since the plaintiffs withdrew their request for class certification.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subsequently entered the case purporting a parallel class action. The court denied consolidation of the cases for trial purposes, but provided for consolidated discovery.

On June 28, 2002, a jury determined that there was no hostile work environment in the original case and granted verdicts for the company with regard to all 22 plaintiffs. Nine plaintiffs elected to settle with the company prior to the trial.

On Dec. 13, 2002, the court granted the company summary judgment in the EEOC case. That judgment was appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by the EEOC. The panel reinstated the case to federal district court.

On Oct. 27, 2004, the Company petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case. The petition was denied on Dec. 23, 2004.

The Company filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 23, 2005, which was denied on Oct. 3, 2005.

The case was remanded to federal district court in Birmingham, Alabama for trial, and trial was scheduled for May 14, 2007.

In continuing mediation efforts, the Company has reached an agreement to settle the case with the EEOC for $0.4 million. The court approved the settlement and a Consent Decree was entered on April 16, 2007.

The suit is "Thomas, et al. v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., et al.,Case No. 2:99-cv-03280-WMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge William M.Acker, Jr.

The suit is “Negron v. Sarasota-Manatee Jewish Housing Council, Inc., Case No. 8:07-cv-01229-SCB-TGW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Susan C. Bucklew with referral to Thomas G. Wilson.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Lieber Inmate’s Lawsuit Denied Class Status----------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge denied a bid by a Lieber Correctional Institution inmate to file a class action against the prison for overcrowding because she is acting as her own lawyer.

Forty-five-year-old inmate Thurman Lilly sued the institution on behalf of more than 550 inmates of the maximum security prison, Meg Kinnard of The Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges overcrowding at the jail violates prisoners’ constitutional rights. Ms. Lilly composed the lawsuit in which 568 other inmates have signed. She filed the suit on her behalf and on behalf of her fellow inmates in June in U.S. District Court in Charleston. It names a dozen prison officials as defendants, including Corrections Director Jon Ozmint and Lieber warden Stan Burtt.

Allegations of overcrowding at the jail include claims that "Prisoners ... are housed two and three to a cell, in cells designed for one prisoner. It also includes claims that supervision of mentally disturbed prisoners is inadequate and that medical treatments are well below state standards.

The overcrowding could result to the spread of diseases and fights between inmates, she said.

SOUTHERN CO: Aug. 14 Fairness Hearing Set in Ga. ERISA Suit-----------------------------------------------------------An August 14, 2007 fairness fearing is scheduled for the ERISA class action, “Spivey v. Southern Co. et al.,” pending in the U.S/ District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Southern Company Employee Savings Plan from April 2, 2001 to July 26, 2006.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class members by:

-- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan’s assets;

-- failing to provide participants with complete and accurate information regarding Mirant stock sufficient to advise participants of the true risks of investing their retirement savings; and

-- failing to properly monitor the performance of their fiduciary appointees, and remove and replace those whose performance was inadequate.

Not all claims were brought against every Defendant.

On October 4, 2005, the District Court issued an order in this matter in which it denied Southern Company’s motion to dismiss the three claims alleged in the Southern ERISA Complaint. The Court also allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with the lawsuit against all of the Defendants named in the Southern ERISA Complaint.

By order entered June 12, 2007, Judge Richard W. Story of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia preliminarily certified Plaintiff’s claims as a Class Action, preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement, and appointed Mark T. Spivey as Class Representative of the Settlement Class.

Judge Story certified the following Settlement Class:

All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Southern Company Employee Savings Plan at any time between April 2, 2001 and July 26, 2006 and whose Plan accounts held Mirant Stock in the Plan’s Mirant Stock Fund, excluding the Southern Defendants and the Immediate Family, beneficiaries, alternate payees, Representatives, or Successors-in-Interest in connection with their accounts in the Plan.

STAPLES INC: November 2007 Trial Set for Calif. Labor Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------A November 2007 trial is scheduled for aconsolidated labor class action pending in a California state court against Staples, Inc.

Various class actions were brought against the company for alleged violations of what is known as California's wage and hour law.

The first of these lawsuits was filed on Oct. 21, 1999. These cases were subsequently consolidated as the "Staples Overtime Cases," Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, Civil Complex Center, (Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4235, Lead Case No. 816121).

The plaintiffs have alleged that the company improperly classified both general and assistant store managers as exempt under the California wage and hour law, making such managers ineligible for overtime wages.

The plaintiffs are seeking to require the company to pay overtime wages to the putative class for the period from Oct. 21, 1995 to the present.

The court has granted class certification to the case. Its ruling though is procedural only and does not address the merits of the plaintiffs' allegations.

The trial date for the case has been scheduled for November 2007.

The company provided no material development in the matter in its May 22, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 5, 2007.

Staples, Inc. -- http://www.staples.com/-- is an office products company. The Company sells a variety of office supplies and services, business machines and related products, computers and related products, and office furniture. Its product offering includes Staples, Quill and other branded products. Staples operates in three business segments.

The North American Retail segment consists of the U.S. and Canadian business units that operate office products stores. The North American Delivery segment consists of the U.S. and Canadian business units that sell and deliver office products and services directly to customers. The International Operations segment consists of operating units that operate office products stores, and that sell and deliver office products and services directly to customers in 19 countries in Europe, South America and Asia. In May 2007, the Company acquired American Identity, a distributor of corporate branded merchandise, from Republic Financial Corp.

ST. JOHN’S: Mo. Couple Allege Overpricing of “Uninsureds”---------------------------------------------------------Gregory and Anna Polsgrove of Stockton, Missouri filed a class action against St. John’s Hospital accusing it of “price gouging,” Dirk VanderHart of the News-Leader.com reports.

The couple asserts the company charges uninsured patients higher prices than those who are insured or on Medicare and unfairly making money off of uninsured patients, who they say are often poor.

According to Mr. VanderHart, the case stems from care Gregory Polsgrove received at the hospital in 2004 following a heart attack. The suit says that, because the man was uninsured, St. John’s forced him to sign a contract agreeing to pay his eventual medical bills.

The suit alleges that at that time, Mr. Polsgrove didn’t know St. John’s engaged in discriminatory and deceptive pricing practices that charge uninsured customers significantly higher rates than other patients. The Polsgroves ended up being billed about $46,224.

The Polsgroves seek to represent all uninsured patients who have received care at St. John’s.

Similar cases against these manufacturers were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before the Honorable Susan Y. Illston. On July 10, 2007, Judge Illston appointed Girard Gibbs LLP as liaison counsel for the consolidated actions on behalf of direct purchaser plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges that the manufacturers agreed to restrict the supply of TFT-LCDs in the market, causing persons and business who bought TFT-LCDs directly from the manufacturers to pay artificially inflated and non-competitive prices in violation of federal law. Customers who bought TFT-LCDs directly from the defendants or their subsidiaries from approximately January 1, 1998, to the present are considered members of the class.

VERITAS SOFTWARE: Still Faces Del. Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------VERITAS Software Corp., which was acquired by Symantec Corp., continues to face a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint, "Paul Kuck, et al. v. Veritas Software Corp., et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with company's announcement on July 6, 2004 that it expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 to fall below earlier estimates. The complaint generally seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the court entered an order consolidating these actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005, expanding the class period from April 23, 2004 through July 6, 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named officers made false or misleading statements in the company's press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the company's financial results, which allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were unsigned or lacked essential terms.

Defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in July 2005, which was denied by the court in May 2006.

The company provided no material development in the matter in its May 23, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2007.

The suit is "Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00831-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson.

WELLPOINT HEALTH: Ala. Suit Alleges Fraud in AWP Calculation------------------------------------------------------------Wellpoint Health Networks is facing a class-action complaint filed July 12 in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, Bessemer Division accusing it of cheating pharmacies, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Pharmacy Xpress claims Wellpoint defrauded pharmacies and benefit managers for years by knowingly using old price lists to calculate its reimbursement at the “average wholesale price.”

Plaintiff claims the average wholesale price is updated electronically in real time and is easily accessible. It claims Wellpoint intentionally and fraudulently uses old data to defraud its clients and increase it profits.

Plaintiff brings this action as a statewide class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all independent pharmacies and/or similar entities who entered into a contract which provided for reimbursement of prescriptions according to a formula which included the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) with defendants and/or their subsidiaries and/or related entities on or after January 1, 2000.

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

*********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.